A quick look at the proposed rule changes

Early last week, the men's and women's Basketball Rules committees met and announced their decisions on proposed rule changes for the 2010-2011 season.

Two of them are fairly straight forward. The women's committee is considering moving the women's three point line back to 20'9", where the men's line currently is. While the effect this will have on the men's game is fairly miniscule, what it will do is help clean up the court. I know I'm not the only one that can do without the multi-colored, dual three point lines on current college courts.

We really don't need two three point lines, do we?
(photo credit: All Big Ten)

The NCAA will also be using an experimental charge circle in the paint during exhibition games and multi-team tournaments. If you remember, last year the NCAA finally implemented a rule where a defender could no longer camp out directly under the basket to draw a charge. (Ed. Note: Does anyone else see the irony in Duke winning a national title the year the charge rule was changed?) But the problem was that the line was "imaginary"; referees had to determine if the player was far enough away from the basket to earn a charge while simultaneously determining whether the play was, in fact, a charge or a block, which is the toughest call in the game.

Hopefully, this rule will stick. It is unfair to put referees in a position to determine how far a player is from the basket. Imagine if the three point line was not on the court, and the refs had to determine visually which shot earned an extra point. If there is going to be a rule stating a player has to be X-feet from the rim to earn a charge, there needs to be consistency in the rule. The only way to make it consistent is by drawing a charge circle in the paint.

The only rule I take an issue with is the proposed tougher penalties on elbows. From the AP report:

If the new elbow rule passes, referees would be required to call a flagrant or intentional foul for anything more than incidental elbow contact above the shoulders. Last season, officials had the discretion to call either a flagrant or common foul for the contact. Common fouls could still be called if the contact is below the shoulders. A flagrant foul would give the opponent two free throws and possession of the ball. A flagrant foul would also lead to the player's ejection.

The problem I have with this rule isn't that I believe you should be allowed to throw elbows on a basketball court. You shouldn't. Its dangerous. Ask Steve Nash.

My problem is that a flagrant or intentional foul would have to be called for "anything more than incidental elbow contact above the shoulders", which would result in free throws for the other team, and possibly an ejection. What is incidental? What isn't? Will that be determined on a ref-by-ref basis?

Remember a couple of years ago when Manny Harris caught Chris Kramer with an elbow?



This kind of play happens all the time. In fact, it is how you are taught to play. If a defender is crowding you -- like Kramer is crowding Harris -- you are taught to rip the ball through to clear some space and square up to the rim. Sometimes a defender is going to catch an elbow. Is it intentional? Yes, but the intent of the elbow isn't to injure a defender. It is to create space, to give an offensive player an advantage when his defender is crowding him. With these new rules the offensive player is more than likely going to earn a flagrant or intentional foul, and very well could be tossed from the game.

There's no place in the game for elbow's thrown with the intent to injure. Its no different than throwing a punch.

I just think it is going to be very difficult for the referees to determine the difference between intent to injure, and intent to make a basketball move.